I don't weigh in on abortion often because the extreme positions on both sides are about the craziest, most ignorant, most thoughtless I ever encounter. This time though, I will.
It is my understanding that the baby was under four months of development in the womb (couldn't survive outside the womb?), a miscarriage was in process, the mother somewhere along the line, developed a very serious blood infection (septicemia) that wasn't able to be cleared up by medicine in time.
Now if all of that is true, then I would not have stood in the way of the mother and father's choice under medical advice from their doctor(s). I wouldn't have stood in the way, period, because I'm anti-coercion and as much as I'm able should only tell others what I believe is good or best under the given circumstances.
Beyond that though is the fact that many who are seeking to capitalize on the death of Savita Halappanavar are actually not interested in simply altering the law to make room for saving a mother where saving both the mother and baby isn't yet possible medically and/or technologically. No, what many who are rallying around this want is abortion-on-demand regardless of anything else and right up to the point of natural delivery (even 9 months). Some feminists even advocate for infanticide: killing a born baby and again, without any reservations whatsoever but just because they want to -- not because they are poor or have some terminal illness or anything but just because they don't want the child, as if the child is just so much trash to be thrown away up to four-years-old. Thank God such extremes are still rare, but for how long?
Do you have any idea how many baby girls are murdered in India? Throw in some ultrasound and abortion-on-demand, and India will end up without enough women to have enough babies to keep the country even going.
Now again, I'm not seeking to be coercive but simply to tell society that it, society, should not be for abortion-on-demand regardless of any other issues. The idea that it is not repugnant when any woman destroys the conceived life in her womb just because she can, is a sign of deep decadence that will ripple through humanity hardening it beyond toleration. It is one of the many paths to Hell on Earth.
So, while I hate the outcome of what happened concerning Savita Halappanavar, I also hate the outcome of abortion without any moral considerations whatsoever.
If you are going to have secular laws, you better make them so that both lives are balanced as much as conceivable. To undervalue either is reprehensible.
You will note that the linked article by The Nation states, "The law in Ireland—which only allows for abortion if a woman's life is in danger...." Well, clearly it was. So that should be the focus, but it isn't.
In addition, The Nation article starts out citing that women who can have abortion do better. However, what isn't discussed are all of the other factors involved in the lives of those women, such as the morality of their own existences, their own other choices, such as out-of-wedlock sex and the like. Yes, there are women who are abused, raped, in abject poverty, etc. I'm not for a second discounting that. What I'm doing is looking at the whole and not just selectively what will bring on abortion-on-demand with no hurdles whatsoever.
The articles states, "She was killed—murdered by a law that places women's humanity beneath that of a fetus." That is hardly correct. That is not either the letter or the spirit of the law. If it were, the law would not be as Jessica Valenti, the authoress, stated: "...allows for abortion if a woman's life is in danger." If the fetus were above the woman, there would be no abortion allowed, period.
You see here with the following paragraph exactly what I mean by advocating for abortion-on-demand with no considerations under the law whatsoever:
American women would do well not to dismiss this as a tragedy that could only happen in another country. This is what happens when you legislate something as personal and complicated as pregnancy. How do doctors decide when a woman is close enough to dying to give her an abortion? Or to what degree does a woman's health need to be at risk?
You see there the type of thinking employed by Aleister Crowley: "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law." So where do they draw the line on abortion if not where Crowley did and his sexual-anarchist followers do now?
Let's be completely honest here and not simply one-sided with the Party line. How many women wanted abortions because they feared for their lives but changed their minds and everything turned out fine?
"There is no way to describe the pain of knowing that to so many—to your country, even—you are nothing."
Now that's just ridiculous. It is completely unfair to paint the people in Ireland who hold with their law that they all individually and even as a nation thought or think Savita or any other woman or women are nothing. Why do people find it necessary to devolved such situations to such terrible tactics? Do some people believe others are valueless? Of course there are such people, but to paint everyone who is anti-abortion as such is just a gross distortion and, frankly, false political propaganda when within the covers of The Nation Magazine.
There are many, many anti-abortion people who take in young pregnant women with seemingly no other place to turn to have their babies. There are many, many anti-abortion people who gladly adopt unwanted babies. To make out that being anti-abortion is to value any life less is a disgusting tactic. I say that while agreeing with plenty of the things said in The Nation Magazine. Why they can't be more honest about both sides, all sides, is just pathetic really.